tupkep与tupkrp治疗高危良性前列腺增生的临床疗效比较分析

《tupkep与tupkrp治疗高危良性前列腺增生的临床疗效比较分析》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在工程资料-天天文库。

1、TUPKEP与TUPKRP治疗高危良性前列腺增生的临床疗效比较分析徐安杜广方震张畅杨登科上海交通大学医学院附属同仁医院摘要：目的:探讨经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术(TUPKEP)与经尿道等离子电切术(TUPKRP)治疗高危良性前列腺增生的临床疗效差异。方法:选取2014年1月2015年12月本院泌尿外科采用手术治疗的72例高危良性前列腺增生患者进行回顾性分析，其中TUPKEP组37例、TUPKRP组35例，对比两组患者的手术情况、并发症及术后患者排尿情况。结果:TUPKEP组患者的手术时间、膀胱冲洗吋间、前列腺切除重量、手术出血量、尿管留置时间、术后住院时间均显著的低于TUP

2、KRP组患者，TUPKEP组患者的前列腺切除重量显著的高于TUPKRP组患者;术后3个月复查,TUPKEP组患者的1PSS评分、RUV、QOL显著的低于TUPKRP组患者,Qmax显箸的高于TUPKRP组患者;术中，TUPKEP组患者的手术并发症率2.70%显著的低于TUPKRP组患者的8.57%;术后，TUPKEP组患者的手术并发症率45.95%显著的低于TUPKRP组患者的71.43%o结论:TUPKEP治疗高危良性前列腺增生较TUPKRP操作方便、快速，具有术后恢复快、手术效果好、并发症少的优势。关键词：经尿道等离了前列腺剜除术;经尿道等离了电切术;高危;良性前列腺

3、增生;作者简介：杜广，E-mail:duguang2003@aliyun.com收稿日期：2017-08-09ComparativeanalysisofclinicalefficacyofTUPKEPandTUPKRPinthetreatmentofhighriskbenignprostatichyperplasiaXuAnDuGuangFangZhenZhangChangYangDeng-keTongRenHospitalShangHaiJiaoTongUniversitySchoolofMedicine;Abstract：ObjectiveToevaluatethet

4、ransurethralenucleationoftheprostate(tupkep)andtransurethralresectionofplasmacuttingoperation(TUPKRP)inthetreatmentofhigh-riskbenignprostatichyperplasia(BPH)thedifferenceoftheclinicaleffect.MethodsSelectJanuary2014to72high-riskpatientswithbenignprostatichyperplasiainDecember2015inourhospi

5、talurologysurgicaltreatmentwereretrospectivelyanalyzed37casesinwhichTUPKEP,TUPKRPgroupof35patients,comparingtwogroupsofpatientswithsurgicalconditions,concurrentdiseaseandpatientsurination.ResuItsTUPKEPgroupwereoperativetime,bladderwashingtime,weightprostatcctomy，surgicalbleeding，indwe1lin

6、gcathetertimeandhospitalstayweresignificantlylowerthanTUPKRPpatients,TUPKEPgroupofpatientswithsignificantweightprostatectomyTUPKRPhigherthanthegroupofpatients;TUPKRPpatientsafter3monthslater,TUPKEPgroupofpatientswithTPSSscore,RUV,QOLwassignificantly1owerthanTUPKRPpaticnts,Qmaxwassignified

7、ntlyhigherthemthat;intraopcrativccomplicationsrateTUPKEPgroupweresignificantlylowerthanthe2.70%8.57%TUPKRPgroupofpatients;postoperativecomplicationsrateTUPKEPgroupwere45.95%significantlylessthan71.43%TUPKRPgroupofpatients.Cone1usionTUPKEPhighriskpatientswithbenignpr